[Senate Report 107-338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 751
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-338
======================================================================
RESTORE THE APALACHICOLA RIVER ECOSYSTEM (RARE) ACT OF 2002
_______
November 12, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Jeffords, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[to accompany S. 2730]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred a bill (S. 2730) to modify certain water resources
projects for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers,
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, having considered the same
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
General Statement, Background, and Objectives of the Legislation
The bill amends the existing authorization for the project
for navigation, Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers,
located in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, authorized by section
2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 17, chapter 19), and
modified by the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60
Stat. 635, chapter 595), and the project for the West Point
Reservoir, Chattahoochee River, Georgia, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182) to
deauthorize the channel between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
near Apalachicola, Florida to the Jim Woodruff Dam near
Chattahoochee, Florida and to authorize the development of a
restoration plan.
The Apalachicola River is located in northwest Florida. It
is home to a bottomland hardwood forest, lakes, ponds,
wetlands, and sloughs. These sloughs deliver fresh water to
tupelo honey trees located in the river basin. The Apalachicola
River provides key habitat for one endangered and two
threatened species and a large sportfish population. Its waters
empty into the Gulf of Mexico where oysters, Gulf shrimp, and
blue crab can thrive on the brackish waters.
The statutes cited above authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to maintain a 9-foot deep channel for year-round
navigational use of the Apalachicola River. The Corps has never
been able to maintain a 9-foot channel for year-round
navigational use. The Corps has turned instead to the use of a
combination of dredging and water releases to provide
navigation windows for barge traffic.
This approach has caused severe environmental damage to the
Apalachicola River. Releases of large quantities of water for
navigation windows has drastic effects on fish and wildlife,
including one endangered species--the fat three-ridge mussel
(Amblema neislerii)--and two threatened species the Gulf
sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and the purple
bankclimber mussel (Elliptoideus sloatianus.) Water releases
trigger spawning behavior for many fish species, leaving them
stranded upstream in backwater areas when the water subsides,
resulting in massive fish kills and the loss of future
generations of fish. According to a letter dated June 7, 2000
from then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Joseph Westphal, an April 2000 navigation window implemented by
the Army Corps of Engineers resulted in an almost complete
failure of sportfish spawn along the entire Apalachicola River
and reservoirs upstream.
Dredging of the Apalachicola River has destroyed
approximately one-quarter of the banks of the Apalachicola
River, in some instances leaving giant walls of sand--one of
which is known as Sand Mountain. In a letter to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection dated April 23, 2002
regarding Permit Modification No. 0129424-003, Permit No.
0129424-001-DF, Gulf and Liberty Counties, Site 40 Rejuvenation
Modification, the Army Corps measures the height of this
mountain at 60 feet, plus or minus 8 feet. The disposal of
large amounts of sand in and around the river and its
tributaries has choked sloughs, cutting off water supply to
surrounding habitat.
The dredging of the Apalachicola River also threatens the
local production of tupelo honey an industry that generates at
least $2.4 million dollars a year in the Florida economy,
according to the Florida Department of Agriculture statistics
(Sept. 2002.) The many sloughs in the Apalachicola River basin
are the main transportation route for fresh water, which is
critical to the health of the tupelo trees. Because these
sloughs are serving as dredged material disposal sites, fresh
water cannot move through the river basin, cutting off the
tupelo trees from their only source of water.
Tupelo honey is not the only agricultural impact from the
dredging of the Apalachicola River. Fresh water pulses from the
Corps' water releases also affect the salinity of brackish
water in Apalachicola Bay, which has been recognized by the
State of Florida as an Outstanding Florida Water, by the
Federal Government as a National Estuarine Reserve, and by the
United Nations as an International Biosphere Reserve. Changes
in salinity threaten the largest oyster harvesting area in the
Gulf of Mexico which produces 90 percent of Florida's oysters,
one of the principal nurseries for Gulf shrimp and blue crabs,
and major commercial fishing operations.
The combination of dredging and low commercial barge
traffic makes the Apalachicola River the most expensive Corps
river project in the south. The Congressional Budget Office, in
its May 1992 report entitled, ``Paying for Highways, Airways,
and Waterways: How Can Users Be Charged?'', estimated that the
average cost per ton-mile from 1995-98 is 14.1 cents, almost 24
times more than the cost of the Upper Mississippi River (.597
cents.) The Corps estimates that there is a return of 40 cents
for every Federal dollar invested in the river. These
conclusions are based on the 97 barge movements that occurred
in 1998. Since this CBO analysis and the Corps' estimate of 40
cents for every Federal dollar invested were completed, barge
traffic has fallen to a low of 4 barges in 2001. This change is
a 96 percent reduction in barge traffic between 1998 and 2001,
which has resulted in an even higher cost per ton-mile than CBO
estimated for the period 1995-1998.
The impacts to the environment and the low commercial use
of the Apalachicola River led then-Secretary Westphal to
describe the project in a letter of August 9, 2000 as not
``economically justified or environmentally defensible.'' The
Apalachicola River was named one of America's most endangered
rivers by American Rivers in 2002. Various pieces of the ACF
system have been listed as threatened or endangered by American
Rivers since 1991. The ACF river project is listed as one of
the nation's ``Top Ten Most Wasteful Projects'' in the report,
``Troubled Waters,'' written by the National Wildlife
Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense in 2000. It was first
listed as a project proposed for elimination in 2001 by the
Green Scissors Report, written by Friends of the Earth,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, the U.S. Public Interest Research
Group, and others. In 2002, this report cited the project as a
``Boondoggle for Barges.''
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title
The act may be cited as the ``Restore the Apalachicola
River Ecosystem Act'' or the ``RARE Act.''
Sec. 2. Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia,
Florida, and Alabama
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This section modifies the project for navigation,
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located in
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the
Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 17, chapter 19), and modified by
the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635,
chapter 595), and the project for the West Point Reservoir,
Chattahoochee River, Georgia, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
First, this section deauthorizes the 9-foot by 100-foot
channel between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near
Apalachicola, Florida, to Jim Woodruff Dam near Chattahoochee,
Florida.
Second, this section authorizes the Secretary of the Army,
in consultation with the State of Florida, to develop a
restoration plan for the Apalachicola River. The Secretary is
required to coordinate with the State of Florida, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States
Geological Survey in developing the plan. Upon completion, the
Secretary shall submit the plan to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
This section also specifies requirements for the plan. The
sole goal of the plan is the reestablishment of the ecological
integrity of the Apalachicola River basin ecosystem (including
restoration of bendways, interconnecting waterways, sloughs,
watersheds, associated land areas, and fish and wildlife
habitat.) The plan shall reestablish an ecosystem that supports
and sustains a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of
organisms having species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to those of the natural habitat of the
Apalachicola River. The plan shall also include a method of
monitoring and assessing the biota, habitats, and water quality
of the Apalachicola River basin for use in assessing
restoration activities and impacts of restoration activities.
This section authorizes funding for plan development of
$4,000,000. It also requires that the Secretary of the Army
engage in significant public outreach while developing the
plan.
This section also explicitly requires that activities
conducted by the Army Corps under this section not interfere
with water compact activities and negotiations being carried
out as of the date of enactment of this Act with respect to the
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, located in
Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. This is a key element of S.
2730. The committee does not intend for this legislation to
interfere with the development of the Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee, and Flint River compact being developed by the
States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.
Finally, this section includes a limitation, which states
that nothing in this section limits the authority of any agency
under any other provision of law to require compliance with any
applicable statutory or regulatory requirement.
Legislative History
Senator Graham (D-FL) introduced S. 2730 with Senator
Nelson (D-FL) on July 16, 2002. It was referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. No hearing was held
on the bill. The committee considered the bill in a business
meeting on September 26, 2002 and ordered the bill reported to
the Senate.
Rollcall Votes
The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to
consider S. 2730 on September 26, 2002. The committee favorably
reported the bill by voice vote. Senator Smith requested to be
officially recorded as voting ``yes, with enthusiasm.''
Senators Inhofe, Bond, Chafee, and Specter requested to be
recorded as voting ``no.''
Regulatory Impact Statement
The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens,
nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of
individuals.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that S. 2730 would
impose no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal
governments.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2002.
Hon. James M. Jeffords, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2730, a bill to
restore the Apalachicola River ecosystem.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie
Middleton, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
----------
S. 2730, Restore the Apalachicola River Ecosystem Act, as ordered
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works on September 26, 2002
Summary
S. 2730 would deauthorize a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
project for maintenance dredging of a 9-foot deep by 100-foot
wide navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola.
River. This channel is part of the Apalacfficola-Chattthoochee-
Flint Rivers navigation project which spans the States of
Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. In addition, this bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps,
to work with the State of Florida to develop a restoration plan
for the Apalachicola River.
Assuming appropriation action consistent with this
legislation, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2730 would
result in a net savings of about $6 million over the 2003-2007
period. Enacting S. 2730 would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
S. 2730 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on the budgets of State, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2730 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION
End Apalachicola Maintenance
Dredging:
Estimated Authorization 0 -2 -2 -2 -2
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 0 -2 -2 -2 -2
Apalachicola Restoration Plan:
Estimated Authorization 2 0 0 0 0
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 1 1 0 0 0
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization 2 -2 -2 -2 -2
Level......................
Estimated Outlays........... 1 -1 -2 -2 -2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of Estimate
For this estimate, CEO assumes that S. 2730 will be enacted
in fiscal year 2003 and that amounts will be appropriated to
complete the restoration plan. Based on information from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CBO estimates that implementing
S. 2730 would result in a net savings of about $6 million over
the 2003-2007 period.
S. 2730 would deauthorize an Army Corps project for
maintenance dredging of a 9-foot deep by 100-foot wide
navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola River.
Currently, the Corps spends about $2 million annually to dredge
this navigation channel. According to the Corps, suspending
maintenance dredging on the Apalachicola River may affect the
Corps's ability to dredge the Chattahoochee River as well as
perform operations and maintenance work, including work on some
locks and darns, along the entire Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint Rivers navigation project. It is uncertain, however, if
and when other dredging and operations and maintenance work
would be disrupted or discontinued. CBO estimates that
implementing S. 2730 would save about $2 million a year
starting in fiscal year 2004; however, savings could increase
as other maintenance costs are discontinued.
S. 2730 also would authorize the Corps to develop a
restoration plan for the Apalachicola River in conjunction with
the State of Florida at a total cost of $4 million. Under
current law, the Corps would be responsible for approximately
one-half of the cost of the restoration plan.
CEO estimates that the Federal cost of the plan would be
about $2 million over fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact
S. 2730 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in TJMRA and would impose no costs on the
budgets of State, local, or tribal governments.
Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton (226-
2860); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie
Miller (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil
McPherson (226-2949).
Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget and Analysis.
Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; Impact on
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact
on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
Estimate Approved By: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Minority Views of Senators Bond and Crapo
The legislation proposed would deauthorize an entire river
system that affects three States, not simply Florida.
Deauthorization of the Apalachiacola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
System is opposed by State and local governments, communities,
as well as businesses and industries. Such an action would have
a significant negative economic impact on the communities that
depend on the river system.
There is a recognition by those opposed to deauthorization
that there are a number of environmental concerns. To that end
there has been an attempt in recent years to address those
concerns. Most importantly, the FY2002 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill included funding specifically for the Army
Corps of Engineers to address ``Sand Mountain'' and the
disposal of dredged spoils on the Apalachiacola River which
were mentioned during consideration of the legislation.
The amount of barge traffic that moves along the ACF was
also raised. While opponents of deauthonzition concede that
barge traffic has dropped off significantly in recent years,
they would point to the lack of available water for navigation
windows due to a multiyear drought rather than a lack of
interest along the river in utilizing barges.
Finally, any attempt to deauthorize the ACF would severely
hamper already difficult on.-going water compact negotiations
among the three States. These negotiations have been under
discussion for more than 3 years now and very recently almost
collapsed due to the very delicate situation associated with
water allocations.
It is our understanding that Senator Shelby has committed
to working with Senator Graham and others to reach a reasonable
solution for the ACF that would both protect the rivers'
ecosystem while maintaining a Corps presence for navigation.
Additionally, he is investigating options that would increase
the amount of water available to the river system, such as
additional reservoirs.
Changes in Existing Law
Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no
changes to existing law.
-